Eric Watt Forste wrote:> The typical Marxist's use of the word "alienate" is so sloppy,> urgent, and confused that I can't get much out of it.

yeah, i agree

> > yup, although i don't think of the population of Uraguay in terms> > of how i can make a profit from them.> > Why not? It goes both ways. The only way you could make a profit from> them is if you did something of service toward them. I guess you're one> of those egoists who never wants to be of service to anyone but yourself> and your personal acquaintances. ;)

Nope, i'd define one of those egoists as someone who'd never help another
unless they profited by it.
it seems to me that the opposite of "egoist" would be "selfless",
as in "her selfless actions brought hope to many".

Michael Butler wrote:
re: "when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail".> With respect, the farthest back I can trace this is to Abraham> Maslow. I'd love to get a source for its being Japanese. Do you have> one?

nope

> I'd say that "commerce is the minimum level of civility with which> we can, or ought hope to, hold as a standard for dealing with strangers".

Gee and my mother just taught me to be polite, to walk on the outside,
to open doors for women, and not to swear.

[SNiP]
i'm sorry i don't understand what you're trying to say

Enigl@aol.com wrote:> Yes, I think love can be thought of as a business. I like business and don't> think it is cold and heartless. I think business is one of the more intimate> relationships you can have with a person. Business and love can be done on a> one to one, eye to eye basis. Extropy #3 had an article by Tom W. Bell "Love> as a Contractual Relationship". He states an analogy: ". . . feelings are> to love relations as profits are to business relations". Sometimes you turn> a profit and sometimes not.

>> << 2) are you married, in a Relationship, is this a relationship based on>> trade ?>> Yes, it is based on trade: Married people enter into a contractual> relationship with all the meanings that has.

not to love, honour and cherish, in sickness and in health,
for better and for worse ?

> << 3) im curious as to how you define success as in "The most successful> people..."> > I define it as people who are happy because they have satisfied the four> areas of human happiness: to live well (eat, sleep, shelter, etc.) , to love> (friends, lovers, customers, etc.), to learn (to know things about the> world), and to leave a legacy (to leave their mark on the world.)

only one of the examples above require business.

> We are responsible for ourselves first, NOT to our neighbors, children,> aging parents, the mentally ill, intellectually handicapped nor anyone else> first. If we can not take care of our selves we can not help anybody else.> "We are all self-employed" meme satisfies the first and basic need, to be> responsible for oneself. That is the basis of all other help we may then> choose to give others.> > Without the meme _We are all self-employed_ there can be no help given to> anyone in the other groups you mention (friends, neighbors, children, aging> parents, the mentally ill, intellectually handicapped).

incorrect, the _We are all self-employed_ meme (M:WaaSE), is being discussed
as being useful to propagate, therefore it is not now universally current.
But being responsible for others in our communities is (where i come from)
a common even old fashioned idea. Therefore we do not require M:WaaSE to
exist for help to be given.

And if M:WaaSE was dominant, would people give aid if it didn't return a
profit ?

> Imagine the alternative meme "We are all NOT self-employed". To me that> means "It's not MY neck (business) if I get in trouble. Lets leach off> someone else. We don't need to be responsible for our own life. I'll let my> parents, government, religion, charity, neighbors, etc. help me and I don't> need to worry about paying them back (altruism)." It's a win-LOSE or> lose-win meme, zero-sum game.

A simple alternative is meaningless.
The alternative to "Always help those in need" (Saintliness)
is "Never help those in need", i would not advocate either.

Also, by your own argument above, would not a more useful meme (and one fairly
current) be "I am responsible for my own life".

> "We are all NOT self-employed" could be the> motto for a communist (or any "Big Brother" style) government or a> socialist-libertarian anarchy.

I come from a thriving Social Democratic society, at our last election,
3 weeks ago we had a turnout in the high 80's (%), we have fairly
universal (if somewhat abraided by New Right Economics) health care
and Social Welfare.

New Zealand is a bloody wonderful country, with a strong history of
middle of the road Liberal/Socialist policies. Pure Libertarianism
Capitalism may be a workable system (tho' i doubt it), but i know by
looking around me that it ain't the only way that works.

> "We are all self-employed" is a win-win idea for capitalist or> libertarian-capitalist anarchy. To get repeat love/business, treat other> people the way you would like to be treated (The Golden Rule).

"he who has the gold makes the rules"

As an excercise, may i suggest that you visit several different public
places and observe. Check out a Library, a beach, a playground,
a supermarket and your family home. Watch peoples' behaviour,
is every relationship a business relationship ? or are there more
economical (using Occams razor) explanations and models ?